Mr. TODD. Well, it is hard to say. It would depend on the individual farming operation, whether it had any other thing that could take up some of the slack. Off-of-the-farm employment or livestock or something else on the farm. With 60 percent of all of the burley allotments in the United States in the minimum category now, and if there is a substantial reduction in allotment in the year ahead, which is inevitable under the current program, it will move 16,000 to 18,000 more into the protective category, so we cannot get the reduction we need, so we will have to take a further reduction the next year, and that will be even less effective because there are fewer farms sharing in it.

Mr. CARTER. Do you not feel that the small farmer should be so protected that he could make enough at least to supplement his other earningss and really earn a living, or do you disagree with that?

Mr. TODD. No, sir; I do not agree with that philosophy. We have had minimum allotments on burley since World War II. We do not have it on any other kind of tobacco. In my thinking it has gotten to the point where reductions, because of the increases in per-acre yields, and the downturn in domestic use to get the program back in balance between supply and demand-I think all growers are going to have to share in it.

Mr. CARTER. You think our small farmers must be cut, too?

Mr. TODD. Yes, sir, I do.

Mr. CARTER. Do you not think that will cause more farmers to leave the farm?

Mr. TODD. Well, it is going to cause more farmers of the so-called big allotment holders to leave the farm, too.

Mr. CARTER. Do you not think that it would increase your urban migration and problems of the cities?

Mr. TODD. It possibly can. It depends again on what the other activities of the farmer may be and what he is engaged in.

Mr. CARTER. What do you think about putting, say, a pound acreage allotment below which the farmer could not cut, say of 1,750 pounds for a five-tenths acre?

Mr. TODD. Well, personally, I would be opposed to it.

Mr. CARTER. You would be opposed to it?

Mr. TODD. Because I think with all of the reductions in allotments that the larger allotments have had over the years, they have made the principal adjustment. There has been some adjustment in the small allotment, too. The problem with the minimum now, the first minimum we had on burley, the first one was a half acre, and then in 1944 it was raised to an acre. Well, that was in the war when there was a shortage, and when there was a shortage of cigarettes and a shortage of tobacco stocks like there were on a lot of other things. No one envisioned at that time that raising them up to an acre would ever have any serious effect, but since then the yields have more than doubled, and we have reduced the minimum to a half an acre. But, there are so many in that category I think to get the proper adjustment between supply and demand that all are going to have to share it. Now, that is my personal opinion.

Mr. CARTER. Then you would be in favor of cutting the small farmer below the five-tenths acre or below the 1,750 pounds?

Mr. TODD. Yes, sir. I think it is essential if you are going to reduce the total supply enough.

Mr. CARTER. Where is most of our burley tobacco produced, on the five-tenths basis or on larger farms?

Mr. TODD. On the half-acre allotments about 60 percent of the allotments are in that category; last year they had a little below 30 percent of the total acreage.

Mr. CARTER. A little below 30 percent, still the smaller part?
Mr. TODD. Yes.

Mr. CARTER. Yes, sir.

I would hope that the powers that be would temper justice with mercy and have pity on the small farmer. I represent 35,000 of them, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you.

Mr. ABBITT. Thank you. We appreciate it.

(Off the record discussion.)

Mr. ABBITT. Unless there are other witnesses that want to be heard, we will ask that the committee go into executive session.

Thank you, gentlemen.

(Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was concluded.)

BURLEY TOBACCO-FARM POUNDAGE QUOTAS

TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1971

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TOBACCO OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 1302, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Watkins M. Abbitt, presiding.

Present: Representatives Abbitt, Stubblefield, Wampler, Miller, and Mizell.

Also present: Representatives Carter, Watts, Hull and Natcher, Mrs. Christine S. Gallagher, chief clerk; Lacy C. Sharp, general counsel; and Hyde H. Murray, associate counsel.

Mr. ABBITT. I will ask the committee to come to order.

I am highly pleased to see so many people interested in this legislation. We have under consideration this afternoon three bills. I'm also highly pleased to see a number of Members of the House here, and we would be pleased if you all would come on up here and sit, if you will. We have Congressman Natcher from Kentucky, Congressman Hull, and Congressman Watts, who was a member of this committee for many, many years. We will be pleased to have you come up here.

As you know, Congressman Watts was a member of this committee, and I will not say for many, many, many years, but quite some time, and he is vitally interested in this tobacco program along with all of

the others here.

I might add for the benefit of the group that the Congressmen have reluctantly agreed to be heard last. It is very seldom that a Member of the House of Representatives or the other body, for that matter, will agree to take second place, but they have agreed since some of you have to catch a plane, and we deeply appreciate it. Of course, many of you happen to be members of the subcommittee, and if we are not able to get back to you, you can come on another day, if necessary, and we appreciate your being here and thank you so much.

Now, in view of the fact that a number of these people tell me they have to leave this afternoon, some of them have to catch a plane. I'm going to skip all of the executive branch, if that is agreeable, and the first one I have who has to catch a plane, Mr. Turner A. Gilmer, Jr., president of the Virginia Burley Tobacco Growers Association. He is from Mr. Wampler's baliwick. Would you like to introduce him, Mr. Wampler?

Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, it affords me great pleasure, and indeed it is an honor to present Mr. Turner A. Gilmer, Jr., of Castlewood, Va.

Mr. Gilmer is the president of the Virginia Burley Tobacco Growers Association, Inc., of Abingdon, Va. He is a tobacco farmer, cattleman, and is extremely knowledgeable of the problems of burley tobacco. The committee welcomes him here this afternoon and will listen with a great deal of interest to what he has to say.

We welcome you here.

Mr. ABBITT. Pleased to have you. Proceed.

STATEMENT OF TURNER A. GILMER, JR., PRESIDENT, VIRGINIA BURLEY TOBACCO GROWERS ASSOCIATION, ABINGDON, VA.

Mr. GILMER, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I was not prepared to be the first witness today, but I do have to catch a plane in a little while, and I appreciate this opportunity. I am not going to try to go into the details of the bills on the floor. I am sure someone else will do that in a little while. I simply want to state the position of the Virginia Burley Tobacco Growers Association, which I represent.

And I cannot speak to the House bills because I have not studied those, but I will, but I will speak about Senator Cooper's S. 789, which in principle is the same, I think.

Our board of directors support the principles embodied in Senator Cooper's bill. We could accept that bill as is, and would support it. However, we feel that it should be liberalized in the area of leasing burley tobacco allotments. We think that leasing should be allowed to cross county lines. We think there should be less limitation on the amounts of leasing that any one farm could lease. It would make a better market for the leasing of tobacco, and in that way would help the minimum allotment men to get the maximum out of their allotments when it becomes impractical for them to use their allotments themselves.

Then in this area of leasing, we would like another provision. We would like in Flue-cured tobacco, in practice, and I do not know whether it is in the law or not, or whether it is a regulation, but about the first of April leasing is discontinued for that year. We feel that this would be a sounder program if leasing could be done at any time during the year, the year round, any day in the year. Now, the effect of that, those of you familiar with the program know, but I will explain it in case someone does not. In the Flue-cured program, if I lease an allotment, I have so many pounds I could sell in addition to my own allotted pounds. Now, if I did not lease an allotment, and I tried to raise my allotment, say if it was 5,000 pounds and I came up with 6,000 pounds, or if I came up with 7,000 pounds, I could sell perhaps 10-percent excess, I could sell 6,000 pounds and then have a thousand pounds I could not sell until the next year, and I would have to keep it around. But, if I could market today, if I found a neighbor who did not raise his allotment, still had his and could not lease it, I could go and lease it from him, or at least a thousand pounds of it from him, I could sell my other thousand pounds and get it out of circulation. There would be no temptation for me to use that thousand pounds by putting it into some illegal market channels. I would not have hurt the program, because it would have come off of production that other farmers could have used the next year anyway; and it would reduce